Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khasokhas Weekly

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to draft space. Cerebellum (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khasokhas Weekly

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD Was contested by an IP and it's not exactly got much better since the PROD was removed from what I see. The sources it includes point to its own website which, correct me if I'm mistaken, fail WP:RS, and Facebook, which fails WP:V , I checked it against Google when I PRODded it and I couldn't find anything that fit the two guidelines above.

There is a post from The Huffington here , but it's about the editor in chief, and not the paper itself, and the New York post website's link in the results (this) brings up Error 404, meaning it's no longer there, if it ever was anyway. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. They just created a page citing their own website and FB page. Its worrying that a random IP with no good intention could challenge a clear case for PROd like that. Fails WP:NMAGAZINE and WP:OR bigtime...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Only sources I could find cover Kishor Panthi, the paper's editor in chief. Meatsgains (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clearly minor publication and WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Recently created promotionalism in appearance. -- Dane ^talk 20:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: so it seems that HariKrishna123 has decided to move the article to draft userspace. Thoughts? Should I withdraw this AFD? I've never come across an article at AFD being moved to Draft during the AFD before... MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 22:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally here, you can withdraw your !vote to delete as the nominator. See WP:Speedy keep for the requirements to withdraw the entire AfD, which won't be met here unless the other delete !votes change. You can also state your support to Incubate (or draftify) if you support the move to draftspace. If you still want the article deleted, draftspace or not, I suggest ignoring the move to draftspace, as the closer will know where to find it. Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the move to Draft space; I consider that to be in bad faith and against the flow of AfD to do it—especially for the creator of the article to do it. That said, I would not object if the closing admin, in the event of a delete result, moved the article to Draft to preserve the history and allow incubation. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen it on occasion usually to do an end-run around an AfD going against it. Might or might not be the case here but I think the AfD should continue especially since there is an accumulation of comments.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, it stays open. I appreciate the guidance, peeps. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 23:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. The AfD was just briefly moved to Draft:Articles for deletion/Khasokhas Weekly. I have moved it back and will move-protect if necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space as has apparently been attempted. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.